<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Glossary on ExcellentWiki - Legal Encyclopedia</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/</link><description>Recent content in Glossary on ExcellentWiki - Legal Encyclopedia</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Glossary of Canadian Civil Procedure Terms</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-civil-procedure/</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-civil-procedure/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="statement-of-claim"&gt;Statement of Claim&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;statement of claim&lt;/strong&gt; is the originating process that commences a civil action in the superior court of a province. It is a document filed by the &lt;strong&gt;plaintiff&lt;/strong&gt; that sets out the material facts upon which the claim is based, the legal basis for relief, and the remedy sought. Under Ontario&amp;rsquo;s &lt;em&gt;Rules of Civil Procedure&lt;/em&gt;, RRO 1990, Reg 194 (the &amp;ldquo;Rules&amp;rdquo;), a statement of claim must contain a &lt;strong&gt;concise statement of the material facts&lt;/strong&gt;, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. The claim must &lt;strong&gt;plead&lt;/strong&gt; every fact that is material to the cause of action and must specifically allege &lt;strong&gt;fraud&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;malice&lt;/strong&gt;, or &lt;strong&gt;breach of trust&lt;/strong&gt; where those are relied upon. The plaintiff must issue the statement of claim (obtaining a court seal and file number) and then &lt;strong&gt;serve&lt;/strong&gt; it on the defendant within the prescribed time (six months in Ontario, extendable by court order). Failure to serve within the limitation period may result in the action being statute-barred. The statement of claim frames the dispute and defines the scope of the litigation.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Glossary of Canadian Constitutional Law Terms</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-constitutional/</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-constitutional/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="a"&gt;A&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Amending Formula&lt;/strong&gt; — The procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, codified in ss. 38–49 of the &lt;em&gt;Constitution Act, 1982&lt;/em&gt;. Canada employs five amending formulas: the &lt;strong&gt;general formula&lt;/strong&gt; (s. 38 — the 7/50 formula: resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population); the &lt;strong&gt;unanimity formula&lt;/strong&gt; (s. 41 — requires consent of all provinces for amendments concerning the monarchy, the amending formula itself, the composition of the Supreme Court, and certain language rights); the &lt;strong&gt;bilateral formula&lt;/strong&gt; (s. 43 — amendments affecting some but not all provinces); the &lt;strong&gt;unilateral federal formula&lt;/strong&gt; (s. 44 — Parliament may amend provisions relating to the executive government, the Senate, and the House of Commons); and the &lt;strong&gt;unilateral provincial formula&lt;/strong&gt; (s. 45 — provincial legislatures may amend their own constitutions).&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Glossary of Canadian Contract Law Terms</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-contracts/</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-contracts/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="offer"&gt;Offer&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An &lt;strong&gt;offer&lt;/strong&gt; is a clear, unequivocal statement of willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it will become binding upon acceptance without further negotiation. Canadian courts assess the existence of an offer objectively, asking whether a reasonable person in the position of the offeree would believe that the offeror intended to be bound upon acceptance (&lt;em&gt;Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co&lt;/em&gt;, [1893] 1 QB 256 (CA)). An offer is distinguished from an &lt;strong&gt;invitation to treat&lt;/strong&gt; — a mere expression of willingness to negotiate or receive offers, such as advertisements, goods displayed on shelves, or calls for tenders. An offer may be revoked at any time before acceptance, unless supported by an &lt;strong&gt;option&lt;/strong&gt; (a separate contract to keep the offer open). It lapses upon the expiry of any stated time, upon the death or insanity of either party, or by operation of a counter-offer.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Glossary of Canadian Criminal Law Terms</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-criminal/</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-criminal/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="a"&gt;A&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Absolute Liability&lt;/strong&gt; — A category of regulatory offence in which the Crown is not required to prove &lt;em&gt;mens rea&lt;/em&gt; and the accused has no defence of due diligence or reasonable mistake of fact. Absolute liability offences are constitutionally suspect: the Supreme Court held in &lt;em&gt;Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (BC)&lt;/em&gt; (1985) that absolute liability offended the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the &lt;em&gt;Charter&lt;/em&gt; where a conviction carried the possibility of imprisonment. As a result, absolute liability offences are now rare and virtually never imposed with a potential sentence of imprisonment.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Glossary of Canadian Property Law Terms</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-property/</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-property/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="fee-simple"&gt;Fee Simple&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fee simple&lt;/strong&gt; is the largest estate in land recognised by Canadian common law, conferring upon the holder the fullest bundle of rights of ownership: the right to possess, use, enjoy, lease, mortgage, sell, and devise the land by will. A fee simple estate is &lt;strong&gt;alienable&lt;/strong&gt; (transferable &lt;em&gt;inter vivos&lt;/em&gt;), &lt;strong&gt;descendible&lt;/strong&gt; (capable of inheritance), and of &lt;strong&gt;potentially infinite duration&lt;/strong&gt;, subject only to the ultimate &lt;em&gt;radical title&lt;/em&gt; of the Crown. The holder holds the land &amp;ldquo;to him and his heirs&amp;rdquo; — though the words of limitation are no longer required under modern conveyancing statutes. The fee simple is not absolute ownership in the strict sense; it is an estate held of the Crown, and the Crown retains the underlying title. In practice, however, the fee simple is the closest approximation to full private ownership available in Canadian law. All lesser estates and interests in land are carved out of the fee simple.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Glossary of Canadian Tort Law Terms</title><link>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-torts/</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://legal.excellentwiki.com/ca/glossary/canada-glossary-torts/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="negligence"&gt;Negligence&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Negligence&lt;/strong&gt; is the dominant civil cause of action in Canadian tort law. A plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a &lt;strong&gt;duty of care&lt;/strong&gt;; (2) that the defendant breached the applicable &lt;strong&gt;standard of care&lt;/strong&gt;; (3) that the breach &lt;strong&gt;caused&lt;/strong&gt; the plaintiff&amp;rsquo;s injury, both in fact and in law; and (4) that the resulting harm is not &lt;strong&gt;too remote&lt;/strong&gt;. The modern law of negligence originates in &lt;em&gt;Donoghue v Stevenson&lt;/em&gt; [1932] AC 562 (HL), which introduced the &lt;strong&gt;neighbour principle&lt;/strong&gt; as the foundation of a generalised duty of care. Canadian courts have since refined the negligence analysis through a two-stage duty framework, the &lt;strong&gt;reasonable person&lt;/strong&gt; standard for breach, and the &lt;strong&gt;but-for&lt;/strong&gt; test for factual causation.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>